High Court Kerala High Court

Shylaja vs The District Superintendent Of … on 18 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Shylaja vs The District Superintendent Of … on 18 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 378 of 2010(S)


1. SHYLAJA,W/O.SUNDARESWARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PARAVUR

3. SYMALAL,S/O.RAVI,KUZHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,

4. RAVI,KUZHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :18/10/2010

 O R D E R
                               R. BASANT &
                    M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     W.P.(Crl).No. 378 of 2010 S
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010

                                  O R D E R

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue

of a writ of Habeas Corpus to search for, trace and produce Suja Sunder,

her daughter aged 17 years (date of birth 27.8.1993). According to the

petitioner, her husband, (father of the alleged detenue) is employed

abroad. The petitioner is residing along with her two children – the

alleged detenue and her younger sister. The alleged detenue was found

missing from 22.9.2010. A crime was registered by the Paravoor

Police. But the police did not trace the alleged detenue. It is in these

circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on

27.9.2010.

2. This petition was admitted on 28.9.2010. Notice was ordered

to the respondents. Today when the case is called, the petitioner along

with her husband has come to Court. She is represented by her counsel.

Respondents 3 and 4 have come to Court. They are represented by their

counsel.

W.P.(Crl).No. 378 of 2010

2

3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the

custody of respondents 3 and 4, we permitted the alleged detenue to

remain alone in the Chamber. We permitted the petitioner and her

husband, the parents of the alleged detenue, to interact with her.

During the pre-lunch sessions the alleged detenue and her parents were

permitted to so interact. After the lunch recess we interact with the

alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents.

Subsequently we interact with respondent No.3 and the alleged

detenue.

4. Counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondents 3 and 4

and learned Government Pleader were also present.

5. The alleged detenue and the third respondent submit before us

that they are in love. They want to get married. The parents of the

third respondent are willing to accept the relationship. The parents of

the alleged detenue are however not willing to accept the relationship

now. The alleged detenue is still a minor. Till the age of 18 years she

cannot get married. The parents of the alleged detenue agree that till

the alleged detenue attains the age of 18 years she shall not be given in

W.P.(Crl).No. 378 of 2010

3

marriage to any one. They further undertake that even thereafter she

will not be given away in marriage to anyone without her full consent.

The parents of the alleged detenue pray that they may be permitted to

take the alleged detenue with them.

6. We tried our best to persuade the parties to come to harmony

and agreement. We are happy to note that there is agreement between

the parties. Accordingly the parties agree and we issue the following

directions.

i) The alleged detenue shall today return from Court along with

her parents.

ii) The alleged detenue shall be accommodated by her parents at

the house of her maternal grandmother at Thonippara. The parents of

the alleged detenue undertake that the alleged detenue shall not be

accused, harassed, tormented or physically belaboured for the

indiscretion committed by her in going with the third respondent

during her minority.

iii) The parents of the alleged detenne shall be at liberty to

advise, counsel and guide the alleged detenue. She shall be brought

W.P.(Crl).No. 378 of 2010

4

again to this Court on 18.10.2010. On that day appropriate further

directions shall be issued. On that day the parents of the alleged

detenue shall file a joint affidavit of undertaking incorporating the

undertakings referred above. Call on 18.10.2010.

(R.BASANT)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm